[eDebate] ans Hoe
Wed Jul 18 21:43:11 CDT 2007
Hola, seems we are going back to cheerful sarcasm...its old skool but fun,
Mike: so you are telling us that if there is a non-policy resolution, ALL of
the Michigan teams will get worked EVERY ROUND by EVERY team that attends
the Wyoming coop?
JBH: Glad we are not using hyperbole to overexaggerate each others
arguments...he he...Yes, thats what I meant....wouldnt suprise me...Matt is
pretty damn good!
Mike: yeesh. you guys were good but Boggs and Molden had your number all
year. we all know that winning nats takes work, talent, and ... luck. but
i won't help you marginalize you and Charlie's achievement. if you don't
think it was much of an achievement, we will have to disagree...
JBH: Boggs and Molden sure did...Man they were good....So were FM. I didnt
say it wasnt an achievement...I said it didnt take long to adapt to Non
> Mike: also, Josh, you were competing in what, your 6th year of
> debate? for one of the premier programs in CEDA. and it pains me greatly
> to write this... but... you... are... pretty... smart... so don't make it
> sound like you just got out of bed and joined the Podunk College team on a
> whim, got your recipe box together and won nationals... even though your
> experience and program gave you a huge leg up over almost everyone you were
> competing against, you still struggled like a seabird caught in an oilslick
> most of the year...
JBH: Sadly it was my 6th year of debate...Thanks for the kind words...I know
it hurts, its ok. You are pretty smart too :)
Mike: also, my senior year, Scott Parsons and John Lapham decided to go to
the NDT qualifier at Northwestern 2 weeks before the tournament, on the
topic of US military commitments to Europe, without a single debate on the
resolution. all SIU CEDA backfiles except cutting one book by Lane. they
qualified to the NDT. at the NDT they went 4-4, not clearing by 1 ballot.
That doesn't show that policy resolutions don't require research or that NDT
debaters are stupid or any other damn thing. My point here is that there
are all sorts of freaky anecdotal occurrences which don't show a damn thing
other than freaky stuff happens.
JBH: Fair enough, as long as you recognize thats a sword that cuts two
ways. Hoss and John...Man those dudes were good.
> Josh: "I know the mere threat of a non-policy resolution almost
> squashed the evil merger...But its really not that different...Certainly not
> enough so that good coaches in the "policy" world will suddenly become
> helpless and old school CEDA coaches will take over the corridors of
> national circuit power."
> Mike: I agree. I do think it would equalize things some though.
JBH: Maybe I am missing the point here......You want non-policy resolutions
to "equalize things some?"
> Mike: wow, you have a really shitty flow, man. did Mallard have to keep
> it for you or something?
> This week I 1) quoted:
> http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-July/071489.html and 2)
> repeated: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-July/071548.html
> an argument made by Ken Broda-Bahm in 1999 that crushes your claim.
> once again: the CEDA decline in participation coincides with a) the 4 or
> 5 years immediately preceding the merger, in which the topics became
> increasingly policy oriented and b) the years after the merger. So your
> argument is TURNED, old man. the pre-merger decline in participation begins
> as resolutions have increasingly obvious "policy implications", accelerates
> as the resolutions actually become "policy resolutions" and continues apace
> after the merger locks us in. Papa Duke did teach you what a "turn" is,
> didn't he?
JBH: Not sure that proves what you want it to prove because, as many have
pointed out, this is at best correlative evidence not causal evidence. Are
you really saying that my first semester (Resolved: Violence is a Justified
Response to Political Oppression) caused people to leave CEDA...Come on
man. If thats the quality of your "turns" these days...Yikes.
> Mike: The decline in participation started and accelerated as resolutions
> became more policy oriented. when that happened, more NDT folk crossed over
> and experienced high school debaters were drawn in too. This gave some
> programs a pretty big advantage over others on those resolutions and
> yeah, there was increasing domination by a few programs. The participation
> drops weren't much until a few years after Josh had won his nationals: by
> then "policy implications" was being run a lot because the resolutions had
> become pretty policy-oriented. The drops accelerated as we moved to actual
> policy resolutions. The drop has continued post merger. What is
> ahistorical is this attempted nonunique.
JBH: If you are right I guess I will "eat my hat." I mean I guess its
possible....but seems pretty far-fetched and sketched together to me. I
know you are saying "they saw the writing on the wall" or whatever...But
still pretty sketchy on the proof end. And also, if they stayed they could
control the agenda as they had before (it was called the west coast mafia
for a reason no?).
Mike: hmmm, if we can't go back to the sweet spot of the CEDA middle years,
can we at least avoid going back to the nightmare of the pre-merger NDT?
> because, Josh, a decade is plenty of time for the way things have been
> done to turn things around. and.. it... has... not.
JBH: I think my argument was that it would NEVER go back...I think its not
happening. I think Non Policy has the potential to create even more
divisions not less. I dont make these arguments and write all this stuff
because I want to piss you and Jackie and Marlow off - I write them because
I disagree with your conclusions and think that they are dangerous.....BUT I
understand why you are making them - and understand why you all are upset.
Mike: no, they probably won't rearrange the power in this activity.
Experience is important and so are resources. But they will cut into that
experience advantage and against some of the institutional advantage.
JBH: Sorry, I think that is at best supposition and at worse an excuse for
even more division of the activity...However, if a non-policy topic wins I
will certainly know what to do.
Mike: And Josh, your opinion that they "stunk" was apparently not shared by
the 200+ member programs in CEDA that fielded what, 320 teams at CEDA nats
the year before you won? The resolutions you like... well... they are being
debated by fewer and fewer programs and debaters... finally: is the
problem that you are only recruiting debaters who can't debate anything but
the same stuff they have already debated in high school? is that the
JBH: Actually, everyone has complained like it was there job about every
single topic I have ever seen policy, non-policy, pink polkadotted,
backward, forward, whatver. I thought they were pretty bad....I prefer the
policy ones...but that is obvious.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman